Dismissed

Posa Sindhuri v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Sept 2024WP/5585/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding family pension and compassionate appointment claims, the Court held that the dispute to declare the lawful wife of a deceased government employee lies with the civil court. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without adjudicating the pension claims.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs, and liberty was granted to the parties to fight the dispute regarding the wife's status before the trial court.

Posa Sindhuri Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5585 OF 2022 X'

¶6

Between:

¶7

Posa Sindhuri, aged about 31 years, W/o.Late Kalikiri Balaji Sukumar, R/o. D.No.3/1671, Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa^District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principle Secretary Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶11

The District Collector, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶12

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶13

The Mandal Education Officer, Mandal Parishad, Sidhout, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶14

The Accountant General (A and E), Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, M.G.Road, Governorpet, Vijayawadad.

¶15

K.Padmavathi, aged about 49 years, W/o.divorced wife of K.Balaji Sukumar, R/o.D.No.3/1671, Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶16

^ ■ I .. AnnuK.Mvi-' • ■

¶17

K Pavan Kumar @ Pavan Ram, S/o Late Kalikiri Balaji Sukumar, R/o D.No.3/1671, Raja Reddy Street near, Beraka Church, Kadapa City and District. Respondent No. 7 impleaded as per Court Order dated 16-08 2023 vide I.A.No. 2 of 2022 in WP No. 5585 of 2022.

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner arised out of the death of her husband i.e, K.Balaji Sukumar in harness while in duty i.e, Family Pension, Compassionate Appointment etc by declaring action of the respondents in keeping her claims pending as illegal and arbitrary in the interest of justice.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 202?

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated i n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner arised out of the death of her husband in harness while in duty on 13-5-2021, which are pending with the respondents, pending Writ Petition.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 20?.?

¶22

Between:

¶23

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principle Secretary Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶24

¶25

The Mandal Education Officer, Mandal Parishad, Sidhout, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶26

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶27

AND

¶28

Posa Sindhuri, aged about 31 years, W/o.Late Kalikiri Balaji Sukumar R/o. D.No.3/1671, Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa^District

¶29

The District Collector, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶30

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶31

The Accountant General ( A and E), Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, M.G.Road, Governorpet, Vijayawadad.

¶32

K.Padmavathi, aged about 49 years, W/o.divorced wife of K.Balaji Sukumar, R/o.D.No.3/1671, Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶33

(Respondent No.2 to 5 are formal party’s)

¶34

...Writ Petitioners/Respondent

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC R/W Rule 12(2) (iii) of Writ Proceedings Rules 1977 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to file counter affidavit in W.P.No.5585 of 2022 in the interest of justice and may be pleased dismiss the above writ petition.

¶36

lA NO: 2 OF 202.3

¶37

Between:

¶38

The Accountant General ( A and E), Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi M.G.Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada

¶39

¶40

...LEAVE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT

¶41

AND

¶42

Posa Sindhuri, aged about 31 years, W/o.Late Kalikiri Balaji Sukumar, R/o. D.No.3/1671, Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa^District.

¶43

...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶44

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principle Secretary Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶45

The District Collector, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶46

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶47

The Mandal Education Officer, Mandal Parishad, Sidhout Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶48

K.Padmavathi, aged about 49 years, W/o.divorced wife of K.Balaji Sukumar, R/o.D.No.3/1671, Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

¶49

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶50

Pavan Kumar @ Pavan Ram, S/o Late Kalikiri Balaji Sukumar, R/o D.No.3/1671, Raja Reddy Street near, Beraka Church, Kadapa City and District.

¶51

...IMPLEADED RESPONDENT

¶52

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be

¶53

pleased to grant leave for filing counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition No. 5585/2022.

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner(s); SRI. G RAMACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 4: GP FOR SERVICES III & SERVICES I

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent N0.3: SMT B V APARNA LAKSHMI

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K SWARNA SESHU

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: NONE APPEARED

¶59

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI E SESHA MAHESH^BABU

¶60

The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010068412022

SMS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶65

[3310]

¶66

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶67

PRESENT

¶68

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶69

WRIT PETITION NO: 5585/2022

Between:

Posa Sindhuri

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶75

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶76

Counsel for the Petitioner;

¶77

1.G RAMACHANDRA REDDY

¶78

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶79

ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU

¶80

2.GP FOR SERVICES 111

3.GP FOR SERVICES!

4.B VAPARNA LAKSHMI

5.KSWARNASESHU

The Court made the following:

¶85

ORDER;

¶86

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia,} consider the claims of the petitioner arisen out of directing the respondents to the death of her husband i^.e, K. BalajiSukumar in^{harnesswhileindutyi.e}

¶87

¶88

Family Pension, Compassionate Appointment etc., by declaring the action of the respondents in keeping her claims pending as illegal and arbitrary.

¶89

The grievance of the petitioner she is wife fo the KalikiriBalajiSukumar. Her husband was worked as S.G Teacher. While working as S.G. Teacher at Diguvapet, Sidhout Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, died in harness while he was in duty on 13.5.2021 .during the life time of her husband, her name is recorded in the Service Register of her husband as his nominee to receive all his retirement/terminal benefits. Pursuant to the legitimate right, she made her claims for family pension and for compassionate appointment to the respondents. The^benefitshave to be cleared without any delay, as they are meant for to come to immediate rescue for distressed widow. In spite of the same, the petitioner’s claim for such benefits though she is eligible and made within time, the respondents have kept them pending. Aggrieved by such action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

¶90

Counter affidavits of respondents No.4 and 5 have^been filed denying all the allegations made in the petition.

¶91

Heard Sri G. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms. P Sudeepthi, learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleaderfor} Services-lll; Smt B.V. Aparna Lakshmi, Sri E. Sesha^{MaheshBabuandSri} K. Swarna Seshu, learned counsels appearing for the^respondents.

¶92

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the petition.

¶93

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that. Late K. Balaji Sukumar, SGT^ MPPS,^{Diguvupet,earlier} got married to one K. Padmavathi. They got two sons^{throughthesaid} wedlock. Subsequently, due to personal reasons, they^{gotdivorcedinthe} Family Court-cum-Vl Additional District Judge, Kadapa^on27.6.2011 in DOP No.83/2009 and in the said order it was clearly^{mentionedthatthe} deceased wife Smt. K.Padmavathi received an amount^{ofRs.13,00,000/-} from her husband i.e., late K. Balaji Sukumar towards^{themaintenanceof} her second son Sai Nikhil in the future and she has^{givennoobjectionto} left her elder son K. Pavan Ram, with the husband,^{andtherebysheshall} It is further stated that after not claim guardianship of her elder son. demise of said K. Balaji Sukumar, the family pension^proposal in favour of Smt. P.Sindhuri have been submitted to the Accountant^General,AP at Hyderabad for verification on 17.6.2021 and 10.11.2021^{throughtheoffice} of Mandal Educational Officer, Sidhout. But the said proposals were returned by the Accountant General on 12-07-2021 on^theground for submission of the Marriage certificate with second^wife. It is further stated that even the O'^^respondent has returned the proposals for the final withdrawal of ZPPF pertaining to Sri. K. Balaji Sukumar, SGT, vide Rc.No.PFll-4/1217.21, Dt.28-06-2021 duly informed that^asthenameof

¶94

' 4

¶95

¶96

the 6‘^ respondent was recorded as a nominee in the official records, the final payment of ZPPF shall not be paid to the petitioner. So far as the payment of APGLI is concerned the same is pending,^{considerationbefore} the respondent. So, whatever the proposals/applications received by the petitioner, she will submit the same to the necessary competent authority for further process and so far as deciding whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits or not is within the jurisdiction of the respondents no. 2, 3 & 5, which shall be decided basing on the available material^{onrecord.Thus} the petitioner herein has no ground to claim the relief sought for and hence. prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶97

On perusing the materia! on record, this Court observed that, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s husband Kalikiri Balaji Sukumar was expired on 13.05.2021 while he was in service. During his life time the petitioner’s husband was worked as S.G. Teacher in diguvapet, Sidhout Mandal. As stated by the petitioner’s counsel that, during the life time of petitioner’s husband, the petitioner name is recorded in the Service Register of her husband as his nominee to receive all his retirement/terminal benefits. Moreover, it is the contention of the. respondents that late K. Balaji Sukumar got married^{tooneK.Padmavathi} and they have two issues. It is also the contention^{oftherespondentsthat} the said K. Padmavathi got divorced with her husband late K.BalajiSukumar through the Court order dated 27.6.2011 in DCP No.83/2009 on the file of Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge,

¶98

Kadapa, and in the said order, it was clearly mentioned^{thatthedeceased} wife Smt. K.Padmavathi received an amount of Rs. 13,00,000/-^from her husband late K.Balaji Sukumar towards maintenance of^hersecondson Sai Nikhil and that she has also given No objection to left her^elderson K.Pavan Kumar, who is impleaded as respondent No.7^{inthepresentwrit} petition and thereby she shall not claim guardianship of her elder son.

¶99

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the^caseandon of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the hearing the submissions opinion that, in the present case, the dispute is in^{betweenthepetitionerand} one K. Padmavathi, who is the 6 respondent herein, with regard to declaration of wife, Therefore both the petitioner as well as respondent^No.6 have to approach the civil Court to decide their dispute with^regardtothe declaration of the wife and that the same shall be^{decidedbythetrialCourt} Further, as far as family pension is only but not before this Court, is declared concerned, if the issue with regard to the wife of^thedeceased once it shall be released by the competent authority^{afterverifying} all the documents.

¶100

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined^todismissthe will be decided by the present writ petition, as the issue in this case competent civil court only.

¶101

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However,^{libertyisgranted} to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.6^{toagitatetheirdispute}

¶102

¶103

before the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶104

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand

¶105

closed.

¶106

Sd/- K.J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

OneCCto SRI. G RAMACHANDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶111

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES 111 & I, High Court Of^Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶112

One CC to SMT B V APARNA LAKSHMI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶113

One CC to SRI. E SESHA MAHESH BABU, Advocate [OPUC]

¶114

One CC to SRI. K SWARNA SESHU, Advocate [OPUC]

¶115

Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh [OUT].}

¶116

THREE CD Copies

AL PRK

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.5585 of 2022

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶123

:o
o
Tx
3 n JAN 2025 I
Current Section
pgSPATCV}*^ ^

Posa Sindhuri v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Posa Sindhuri v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Linga Narendra Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Yerra Eswar Rao, S/o. Y.Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Boatmen and Fisherman Coop., Society, Vs Prl.Secy., Mines and Miners, Hyd., and 4 Others

M Anitha Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Padmavathi Vs the Chief Executive Officer

M Venkata Swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh